On the Divine Names and the Mystical Theology — trans. C. E. Rolt
The translator’s English as printed (C. E. Rolt). The original-language text is not held; names are romanised as the translator printed them.
Theologians on the Unity and Trinity of God. The incomprehensibility of the First Cause appears self-evident. And if Deity is incomprehensible, definition is impossible. For that which cannot be understood certainly cannot be defined. We can only say that God is; but what He is we are unable to affirm. But if this is so, why have the Theologians ventured to predicate Unity and Trinity as characteristics of the ultimate reality?
To the Disciple’s criticism the Master replies by appealing to the teaching of the Areopagite. Did not the Areopagite affirm that no words, no names, no expression whatever, can express the supreme and causal essence of all things? That authority is quoted as decisive.
Neither the Unity nor the Trinity in God is such that the clearest human intellect is able to conceive it. Why, then, have the Theologians taught these doctrines?
Erigena’s answer is: In order to provide religious people with some definite object for contemplation and instruction.
For this purpose the faithful are bidden to believe in their heart and confess with their lips that God is good, and that He exists in one Divine essence and three persons.
And this teaching of the Theologians is, in the Master’s opinion, not without philosophical justification.
For contemplating the ineffable cause of all things, the Theologians speak of the Unity.
Then again, contemplating this Divine Unity as extended into multiplicity, they affirm the Trinity. And the Trinity is the unbegotten, the begotten, and the proceeding.
The Master goes on to explain the distinction between affirmative and negative theology. Negative theology denies that certain things can be predicated of Deity. Affirmative theology asserts propositions which can be predicated. This again is altogether based on the teaching of Dionysius.
Theologians on the Unity and Trinity of God. The incomprehensibility of the First Cause seems self-evident. And if Deity is incomprehensible, definition is impossible, for what cannot be understood certainly cannot be defined. We can only say that God is; what He is we cannot affirm. But if so, why have the Theologians ventured to predicate Unity and Trinity as characteristics of the ultimate reality?
To the Disciple’s criticism the Master replies by appealing to the teaching of the Areopagite. Did not the Areopagite affirm that no words, no names, no expression of any kind can express the supreme and causal essence of all things? That authority is cited as decisive.
Neither the Unity nor the Trinity in God is such that the clearest human intellect can conceive it. Why, then, have the Theologians taught these doctrines?
Erigena’s answer is: to provide religious people with some definite object for contemplation and instruction.
For this purpose the faithful are told to believe in their heart and confess with their lips that God is good, and that He exists in one Divine essence and three persons.
And in the Master’s opinion this teaching of the Theologians is not without philosophical justification.
For when they contemplate the ineffable cause of all things, the Theologians speak of the Unity.
Then again, contemplating this Divine Unity as extended into multiplicity, they affirm the Trinity. And the Trinity is the unbegotten, the begotten, and the proceeding.
The Master goes on to explain the distinction between affirmative and negative theology. Negative theology denies that certain things can be predicated of Deity; affirmative theology asserts the propositions that can be predicated. This, again, is based entirely on the teaching of Dionysius.